Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut:
WT:AC/C/P

This could include injunctions and motions made on the WP:RFAr page. Looks good. Dmcdevit·t 09:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


I notice that there are some pages which record paroles and probations that are not being kept up. Would it be appropriate to add those to the list of closing actions? -Will Beback 05:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I see they were commented out, so that their status can be ascertained. Those lists have not been deleted by the community. If they are not used than other simialr lists need to be created. Please comment here. Thanks, -Will Beback 09:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe some people think those lists need to be maintained, but I'm not in favor of having clerk responsibilities increased by community fiat. Closing a case is rather painful and after closing several I don't think I've ever gotten everything right on the first try. I don't mean to be snarky, but those people who want those pages maintained might consider maintaining them. --Ryan Delaney talk 19:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The best place to go to see paroles and probations and bans is WP:RFAR/AER. These are kept up to date. WP:RfAR/closed also gives a brief summary of each case, with all remedies (at least of recent cases) and the most significant participants. --Tony Sidaway 19:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Ditto the other clerks. Before creating a new process, we must ascertain if there exists a need for said process. Considering that the pages linked to had not been actively used in ages, I thought their status (whether they're deprecated, etc.) needed clarification -- and anyhow, as Ryan said, it's rather hard to close cases already. It's probably simpler to go to AER or the closed cases list, since most cases end up with some sort of parole anyhow. Johnleemk | Talk 14:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

We should either use the pages or delete them. I'd be willing to maintina them, at least so far as updating them to the present. The reason I brought this up is the case of User:JarlaxleArtemis, whose probation was not recorded anywhere. Somewhere we need to record this info. I'm sorry if it is onerous. Let's find the easiest way to keep track of this info, and get rid of pages (or sections) that aren't used. -Will Beback 20:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you to the extent that the case records probably need to be rationalized. What I, and I think the other clerks, would object to is simply adding these pages to the list of those that need to be updated with each case close.
I wonder if you'd like to take a look at WP:RfAR/closed and see if you could bring that up to date. It is supposed to list all remedies and the parties they apply to. I think we'd end up with a maintainable clerical procedure and a ready and reliable source of information about bans, mentorships, probations and paroles of all kinds mandated directly by the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 20:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
That all sounds good, and I am willing to contribute some hours towards making the RfAR listing complete. But the problem still remains there are also community bans, paroles, and probations (at least theoretically). User:JarlaxleArtemis's case is odd because he consented to return under a parole that was not imposed on him by an ArbCom decision. Perhaps I'm extrapolating too much from an unusual case. Even so I we need to allow for the recording of non-ArbCom measures either in the same place or in a closely-parallel article. -Will Beback 09:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categorization

I had a question about ArbCom case categorization. It looks like originally, every case went into Category:Wikipedia Arbitration cases. However, over the last few months, this appears to have gotten more haphazard, and some cases are being listed, while others aren't. In order to avoid this problem, I recommend that the basic case template include the category listing. Anyone have thoughts on the matter? --Elonka 22:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opening a case with ArbComBot

  1. A case should be opened one day after the fourth (net) Arbitrator has accepted it.
  2. Open Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Template and by editing it, copy its contents.
  3. Make a new page Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/(Name of case).
    • Choose a non-offensive name that does not telegraph an opinion. Try to name the case after the issue or article at the center of the dispute. If there is no clear central issue other than the behavior of the involved editor/s, use their name/s, but avoid adversarial terms like "Fred vs Barney."
  4. Paste the contents of the template and save.
  5. Copy the case from WP:RFAR to the new case page, following the template.
    • Replace party names with {{Userlinks|name}} or {{Admin|name}} where appropriate.
    • Copy the statements of the parties to the main page and the statements of "uninvolved" editors to the talk page. Make sure to adjust the section headers. (WP:RFAR uses ====Sections=== for statements but the case template uses ==Sections==.
    • If there is way too much stuff pick the most relevant parts and put the entire original on the talk page.
  6. Don't forget to uncomment the case opened timestamp at the top.
  7. Save.
  8. Delete the section off of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration.
  9. Run arbcombot. (fill in the template at User:ArbComBot/task.make sure to leave no spaces between equal signs! p=user not p = user!.
  10. On Proposed decision, calculate recused and active Arbitrators and calculate number of votes required. (bot can do this if you have a field for it)
  11. Then update Template:ArbComOpenTasks:
    {{Evidence|My new case|The date}} (don't subst: the templates) (again the bot can do this, given that we put an html comment into the template)

—— Eagle101Need help? 08:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarifications and motions in prior cases

Following AA-3, I'd like to check if there's a possibly better template for clarifications and appeals, and also update a couple of process things.

Structure/templating

Whilst RFAR cases have strong structures (ie fixed templated layouts), motions and clarifications don't. I think these would help a lot. I've created a possible parameterized template to automate these, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Template/Request. The template sets up the section with appropriate variations, for each type of request.

This would make RFAR motions, appeals and clarifications a lot more standardized and also easier to follow with the eye, and see where we're at. FT2 (Talk | email) 10:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If the clerk notes section is moved above the arbitrators section, it is starting to look very similar to the request template, with only the "Involved parties" section missing. We could merge the logic of the new template into the existing one, so it is called as {{RFARrequest|[C|M|P]|casename | initiators statement}} for clarifications/motions, and {{RFARrequest|N|casename| initiators statement }} for new cases. John Vandenberg (talk) 12:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Makes sense. I have amended the above template to handle normal RFARs too. First thing to check -- any objections to the principle of using a template something like this, for motions, clarifications etc? FT2 (Talk | email) 14:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Posting of motions in prior cases

Points that came out of AA3:

  1. Check whether remedies, or enforcements, or both are superseded. It's important someone double checks the proposed motion and considers what remedies and enforcements are superseded, or might need to be edited, if the motion passes. For example in AA-3 there was a motion to amend the remedies, but the original enforcement was left standing at first and it would have conflicted with the proposed remedy. So arbs and clerks both, we need to watch for that :)
  2. If a motion passes, superseded decisions in the original case need to be struck out and marked as superseded, and also the new motions need to be linked to a historic page revision which shows the voting and discussion. This helps users :)

Example: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

FT2 (Talk | email) 10:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)